Search Results

The device is intended for use by a qualified physician for ultrasound evaluation of Fetal, Abdominal, Intra-operative, Intra-operative (Neuro), Laparoscopic, Pediatric, Neonatal Cephalic, Trans-rectal & vaginal, Musculo-skeletal, Gynecological, Cardiac-(Adult, Neonatal, Pediatric), TEE & Peripheral Vascular.
The device is not indicated for Ophthalmic applications.

The Prosound Alpha 7 Ver. 6.0 Diagnostic Ultrasound System is a full feature imaging and analysis system. It consist of a mobile console that provides acquisition, processing and display capability. The user interface includes a computer type keyboard, specialized controls and a display.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Hitachi Aloka Medical Prosound Alpha 7 Ver. 6.0 Diagnostic Ultrasound System. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device and specifying the intended uses for various transducers. It does not contain acceptance criteria for device performance or a study demonstrating that the device meets such criteria.

The document states:

• "I. Non-clinical Tests: The device and its transducers have been evaluated for acoustic output, biocompatibility, cleaning & disinfection effectiveness, electromagnetic compatibility, as well as electrical and mechanical safety, and have been found to conform with applicable medical device safety standards."
• "2. Clinical Tests: None Required."

Given this, I cannot extract specific acceptance criteria related to clinical performance or a study proving the device meets those criteria from the provided text.

Therefore, the requested table and information cannot be fully populated as the core information (acceptance criteria and a study demonstrating meeting them) is not present in the provided 510(k) summary for clinical performance.

However, I can provide the non-clinical acceptance criteria that were met.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• The document states "Clinical Tests: None Required." Therefore, there is no information on a sample size for a clinical test set or data provenance from such a study. For non-clinical tests, specific sample sizes (e.g., number of units tested for acoustic output) are not detailed in this summary, but implied to be sufficient to demonstrate conformity to standards.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

• No clinical test set was used, so no experts were involved in establishing ground truth for a test set in the context of clinical performance.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

• No clinical test set was used, so no adjudication method is applicable.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

• No MRMC study was mentioned, nor is this device described as having AI capabilities.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done

• This device is a Diagnostic Ultrasound System; it does not appear to be an algorithm-only device, and no standalone performance study in that context is mentioned.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

• No clinical ground truth was established as clinical tests were not required. The "ground truth" for non-clinical aspects was defined by applicable safety and performance standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This document pertains to regulatory submission for a diagnostic ultrasound system, not typically an AI-based system that requires a training set in the machine learning sense.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

• Not applicable. (See point 8)

Ask a specific question about this device